↓ Skip to main content

Telerehabilitation for people with low vision

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Telerehabilitation for people with low vision
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011019.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ava K Bittner, Stephanie L Wykstra, Patrick D Yoshinaga, Tianjing Li

Abstract

Low vision affects over 300 million people worldwide and can compromise both activities of daily living and quality of life. Rehabilitative training and vision assistive equipment (VAE) may help, but some visually impaired people have limited resources to attend in-person visits at rehabilitation clinics. These people may be able to overcome barriers to care through remote, Internet-based consultation (i.e., telerehabilitation). To compare the effects of telerehabilitation with face-to-face (e.g., in-office or inpatient) vision rehabilitation services for improving vision-related quality of life and reading speed in people with visual function loss due to any ocular condition. Secondary objectives are to evaluate compliance with scheduled rehabilitation sessions, abandonment rates for visual assistive equipment devices, and patient satisfaction ratings. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1980 to June 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2015), PubMed (1980 to June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any language restriction or study design filter in the electronic searches; however, we restricted the searches from 1980 onwards because the Internet was not introduced to the public until 1982. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 June 2015. We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which participants were diagnosed with low vision and were undergoing low vision rehabilitation using an Internet, web-based technology compared with an approach based on in-person consultations. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and then full-text articles against the eligibility criteria. We planned to have two authors independently abstract data from included studies. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We did not find any study that met the inclusion criteria for this review and, hence, we did not conduct a quantitative analysis. As a part of the background, we discussed review articles on telemedicine for facilitating communication with elderly individuals or for providing remote ophthalmological care. We did not find any evidence on whether the use of telerehabilitation is feasible or a potentially viable means to remotely deliver rehabilitation services to individuals with low vision. Given the disease burden and the growing interest in telemedicine, there is a need for future pilot studies and subsequent clinical trials to explore the potential for telerehabilitation as a platform for providing services to people with low vision.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 67%
Unspecified 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 33%
Psychology 1 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#2,279,560
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,051
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,779
of 238,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#161
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,516 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.